QuoteReplyTopic: One Too Many Barnacles on Its Bottom??? Posted: May 20 2007 at 6:59am

AS ONE of THE LAST ACTORS in HOLLYWOOD WHO REFUSED to MAKE MOVIES JUST for MONEY, JOHNNY DEPP HAD LONG BEEN a FAVORITE of OURS...

BUT THIS THIRD FLOGGING of the TIRED PIRATES FRANCHISE, FOLLOWING on the HEELS of 2006's OVER-LONG and UNDER-ENTERTAINING SECOND ENTRY, LOOKS LIKE 2007's ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of HOW MONEY TALKS (WHILE ORIGINALITY WALKS) in TINSEL TOWN THESE DAZE: "HEY, THE LAST ONE MADE a KILLING, LET's JUST KEEP 'EM COMING...WHADDAYA MEAN WHAT'S THE POINT? IT'LL MAKE MONEY, THAT'S THE POINT!!"

So, MWG seems to be correct in the number of fanboys who rate a movie beforehand on IMDb. However, this still ignores the great probability that many of the industry people who worked on the film rated it, and it also ignores the weighted rating system IMDb employs that, over time, levels out a films rating.

I never expected THIS to be on the list...really, my jaw dropped when I saw this. This might turn out to be good.

BTW, this film was actually shot back-to-back with "Dead Man's Chest"

(Gee, you pick this over 'Thr3e', a real piece of turd I've been telling you about now for a few months, which is now out on video. Shame on you, HeadRazz. Shame! Shame!)

Response from Head RAZZberry: The total box office for THR3E, according to B.O. MoJo, was $1,008,849 -- Not large enough to argue that many people even saw it, but not small enough to be a spectacular embarrassment like DIRTY LOVE (which grossed all of $58,000). Also, I think you're getting Worst Movie of the Weak and Worst New Movie on DVD This Weak confused. TH3E has already been on DVD for nearly a month at this time. The DVD title for this week (May 22, 2007) is EPIC MOVIE, which grossed around $40 million and, from any perspective, is rated one of 2007's biggest disappointments...

I don't know about this being a RAZZIE contender at all, but I'll still agree with you on this one thing, Head RAZZ. Johnny Depp doesn't do any movies unless it's just for money, but he's not the only one out there that's like that. There's Tom Cruise, and hey, look where he ended up last year. But Johnny Depp is well different from Tom Cruise on many things. I'm pretty sure we all know that.

It hits selected theaters May 24, then hits theaters nationwide May 25. It's going to be a Box Office Hit like the first two, but it's going to be the weakest of the three. Anyway, what about this film, BUG? You think we should wait until critics reviews are out? I'll wait to see.

But clearly, I, like everyone else, was disappointed with the ending of the second one. But, the second one won the Best Achievents in Visual Effects Oscar, even though that didnt matter at all, but you admit that it had good visual effects though.

Response from Head RAZZberry: BUG was the other title under consideration as Worst of the Weak -- But it's currently got a 64% FAVORABLE Rating at RT (LINK) and looks like a deliberately hokey horror "homage."

I knew when I picked PIRATES 3 it would be controversial (after all, the previous entry, sucky though it was, had the biggest-ever Opening Weekend until SPIDEY 3 came along). I chose AT WIT'S END in large part because it is so emblematic of what's wrong with Hollywood right now: A movie made for the sole purpose of making money. If it's at all like PIRATES 2, it will have a plot no one can follow, loud and overly-elaborate stunt sequences popping up like clockwork every 7 minutes or so, and dialogue that could have written by a team of monkeys endlessly shown the DVD versions of the first two PIRATES movies. Sadly, PIRATES 3 will also likely end up one of this year's Top Five box office draws...

The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.

But weren't they suppose to make a trilogy hence not trying to make money but trying to make a movie? It's just like Harry Potter or The Matrix Trilogy. If they make a Finding Nemo 2, yeah, that's for the money but this movie will end at the 3rd...unless it will make money (which they will) and will consider a 4th movie like Spider-Man, which is already considered to have a 4th movie. Anyway, I don't know why people didn't like the ending of the 2nd. It was great! A cliffhanger! What more do you want?! Yeah, and I think this sequel will beat the 2nd movie.

Response from Head RAZZberry: It is my understanding that the second and third PIRATE films (which were shot concurrently) were not planned from the git-go, but came about because of the first film's unexpected success. As for comparing them to the HARRY POTTER franchise, the POTTER films are based on a series of novels which author J.K. Rowling clearly said from her first volume was intended to be a series of seven books, with each book following the characters through one year at Hogwart's. Also, anyone who would compare the magical joy of HARRY POTTER (both the books and the movies) to the mechanical money-making enterprise that is Disney's PIRATE movies doesn't know good film-making (or writing) when they see it...

Personally, I liked Dead Man's Chest about the same as I liked Curse of the Black Pearl, but for different reasons. CotBP had a solid story, Depp was brilliant channeling Keith Richards into a pirate, and the whole thing was fun, but the pacing dragged in a number of parts. There were no problems with pacing with DMC, though. Many fun scenes, all coming rapid fire, great ideas, but there wasn't much of a story, and it felt like overload at times. And although some of you will disagree, for me there seemed a couple of times where Depp channeled Willie Wonka instead of Keith Richards.

I want to see Jack Sparrow and the end of this trilogy, but I don't put it on the same level as Harry Potter, and it's nowhere close to Lord of the Rings. Whether it's razzable or not remains to be seen, but it needs to be better than DMC, and the ending better be as good as or better than CotBP. Special effects and funny scenes don't alone make a good story.

I came on here, and when I saw this movie was on this forum, I was like: "YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!" I'll still go see it, but you can't blame Johnny Depp for terrible acting, which I haven't seen since FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, BLOW, and FROM HELL, not to forget, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Those three films disappointed me a whole lot. But I guess there's every reason to blame Johnny Depp for deciding to refuse to do movies unless it's about BIG money.

Right now Disney seems to be on the fence whether or not to continue onward after this one, so if this makes anywhere near the previous one opening weekend, expect them to plow right ahead without looking. There may be about one or two more stories that could be told, but they would have to be done carefully and thoughtfully if they want to keep the audience.

Thus, you do have to appreciate that Walt was himself smart enough to not run things into the ground over and over again during his career, that he knew his viewers wanted a different experience each time (best exemplified in his summation when distributors were begging for a Snow White sequel: "You can't build on dwarfs with more dwarfs.").

I just glanced at the headline reviews on rotten tomatoes, a few mentioned that Depp gives a good performance, and I read some praise for the always-excellent Geoffrey Rush. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley didn't seem to be getting many good notices, but it's still early. Bill Nighy is almost as consistently good as Rush, I hope they get a few scenes together.

I saw this last night: It is too long, and not all that entertaining, but ultimately, not Razzie worthy.

Depp is good, but his performance only serves to highlight how inadequate everyone else is. Orlando Bloom is so wooden I expected someone to mistake him for a plank and force some misbehaving crewman to walk off his back into the foamy brine. Kiera Knightly is as invisble as a pretty woman can be. On the whole, it was an interminable blabfest.

There is one other point I would like to note. We live a few blocks from a 16 screen mega-plex with stadium seating. Last night, exactly 4 films were showing: Pirates 3, Shrek 3 and Spiderman 3 plus one other movie showing on one screen. In effect, 15 screens in a 16 screen theater were showing 3 movies we have seen twice before!

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

But weren't they suppose to make a trilogy hence not trying to make money but trying to make a movie? It's just like Harry Potter or The Matrix Trilogy. If they make a Finding Nemo 2, yeah, that's for the money but this movie will end at the 3rd...

The ending of this film very clearly set up a Pirates of the Caribbean 4. I would predict that the subtitle will either be Search for the Fountain of Youth or Another Cynical Raid on Your Wallet.

Incidentally, If moviewizguy really believes that this series was ever intended to be a trilogy, I'd be happy to provide a lengthy list of contradictions between the first film and the other two that perhaps he can explain for us. In fact, there were some puzzling contradictions between the second and third films that would be difficult enough to explain, especially since they were made concurrently.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Incidentally, If moviewizguy really believes that this series was ever intended to be a trilogy, I'd be happy to provide a lengthy list of contradictions between the first film and the other two that perhaps he can explain for us. In fact, there were some puzzling contradictions between the second and third films that would be difficult enough to explain, especially since they were made concurrently.

I'd just like to know, what are some of these contradictions? I barely remember much of the plot of DEAD MAN'S CHEST much less any contradicts with the first movie.

I just saw it last night, I agree with SaturnWatcher, it was too long and too talky, but Johnny Depp did his usual good job. I also thought Bill Nighy got a lot out of a character that could have limited a lesser actor. Orlando Bloom was pretty wooden, though. And Rush was ok, not Oscar or razzie worthy as HeadRazz would say.

I'd just like to know, what are some of these contradictions? I barely remember much of the plot of DEAD MAN'S CHEST much less any contradicts with the first movie.

Admittedly, I was somewhat in the same position until I ran across a web blog a couple days ago which listed a number of them. Darned if I can find it again at the moment, but when I do, I will post a link. Either that, or I'm going to have to watch it again. We'll get 3 chances on one of the Turner networks later this week.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum